[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250926134056.383c57a2@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 13:40:56 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>
Cc: "Andrew Lunn" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Paolo Abeni"
<pabeni@...hat.com>, "Rob Herring" <robh@...nel.org>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski"
<krzk+dt@...nel.org>, "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>, "Nicolas Ferre"
<nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, "Claudiu Beznea" <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, "Harini Katakam"
<harini.katakam@...inx.com>, "Richard Cochran" <richardcochran@...il.com>,
"Russell King" <linux@...linux.org.uk>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Thomas
Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, "Tawfik Bayouk"
<tawfik.bayouk@...ileye.com>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski"
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, "Sean Anderson" <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v6 0/5] net: macb: various fixes
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 09:56:25 +0200 Théo Lebrun wrote:
> On Tue Sep 23, 2025 at 6:00 PM CEST, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> > This would have been a RESEND if it wasn't for that oneline RCT fix.
> > Rebased and tested on the latest net/main as well, still working fine
> > on EyeQ5 hardware.
> >
> > Fix a few disparate topics in MACB:
> >
> > [PATCH net v6 1/5] dt-bindings: net: cdns,macb: allow tsu_clk without tx_clk
> > [PATCH net v6 2/5] net: macb: remove illusion about TBQPH/RBQPH being per-queue
> > [PATCH net v6 3/5] net: macb: move ring size computation to functions
> > [PATCH net v6 4/5] net: macb: single dma_alloc_coherent() for DMA descriptors
> > [PATCH net v6 5/5] net: macb: avoid dealing with endianness in macb_set_hwaddr()
>
> What's the state of maintainers minds for this series? It has been
> stable for some time, tested on sam9x75 (by Nicolas Ferre) & EyeQ5
> and Simon Horman has added his reviewed-by this morning (thanks!).
> But of course I am biased.
We'll get to it.. having the revisions a few days apart rather than
a few weeks apart helps maintainers remember the details, and generally
leads to lower wait times. FWIW.
> I am asking because merging would benefit my pending series.
Sorry, if the merge window opens on Sunday there's no chance of
making progress on your pending series.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists